analyze_color

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses extensive behavioral details: what metrics are returned (contrast, saturation, per-channel means, clipping, heuristic flags, verdict), that it accepts multiple input sources (asset_id, ComfyUI ref, image path), and the optional histogram and reference_path features. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph containing all necessary information. It is efficient with no wasted words, but could benefit from structuring with bullet points for readability. Front-loading is good with the main purpose first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all aspects: input sources, return values (including heuristic flags and verdict), optional features (histogram, reference_path), and handling videos. It is complete and leaves no obvious gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains the mutual exclusivity of path, asset_id, and filename; clarifies that reference_path is for shot-matching; and that histogram returns an overlaid PNG. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, which are generic.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it measures color of a rendered image, returns specific metrics (black/white points, contrast, saturation, etc.), heuristic flags, and a verdict. It distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which are color analysis tools. The verb 'measure' and resource 'color of a rendered image' are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to diagnose washed out objectively and decide a color fix' and advises to extract a frame first for videos. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the context implies this is the dedicated color analysis tool. Slightly lacking exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.